Brandt Sponseller
As it begins, Paul (William Dame) is an airplane mechanic who is suddenly accosted by two older crooks in trenchcoats. They knock him out. He awakens to find himself in an older mansion, where a woman, Stephanie (Catherine Dee), seems to know him despite the fact that he's never seen her before, and an older transvestite, "Roberta" (M.R. Murphy), is keeping Paul and Stephanie captive, apparently with the intent of watching them have sex. Just who is Roberta? Is that really her motive? How did Stephanie get there? How long has she been there? Why did they pick Paul? Forget that the title is a misnomer and we never get to see Stephanie stuffed into an incinerator or even an attempt to do this. For fans of the ridiculous, this is a little gem resurrected by Troma and Brentwood/BCI Eclipse for their recent "Toxie's Triple Terror" DVD releases. To appreciate the film, you have to not only not mind filmmakers breaking their "generic (genre-related) contract" with the audience, but breaking any kind of implied contract about narrative forthrightness. The name of the game here is really "pulling the rug out from beneath the viewer", but amusingly, neither the apparent scenarios nor the rug-pulling are very sophisticated, making Stuff Stephanie in the Incinerator usually play like a more pedestrian "so bad, it's good" horror film gone haywire after viewing far too many "rubber reality" films, ala Mulholland Drive (2001), The Butterfly Effect (2004), etc. That Stuff Stephanie in the Incinerator predates all of the rubber reality films, which could reasonably be said to begin with Jacob's Ladder (1990), doesn't make it prescient so much as retroactively, accidentally related. In 1989, this probably seemed like so much nonsense rather than anything groundbreaking or postmodernist.Being less generous, it's easy to imagine instead that writer Peter Jones and writer/director Don Nardo continually didn't know where to go with their script, so every once in a while they used a variant of the old, "No, that was just a dream" tactic and basically started over. At least this variation on that ploy gives an "excuse" for bad acting, which is deliciously abundant in the film--delicious because it is bad enough to be hilarious. Maybe the script wasn't even done when they began, and as they were shooting they were continually unhappy with the tenor of their footage, so they periodically changed gears. Whatever the cause, if you've a taste for bizarreness, absurdity or camp, you're going to want to watch this film. In fact, it is a must-see for you.While I'm sure other writers are giving away the nature of the "reveals", I think the film is a lot more fun if you do not know what to expect, so I'll refrain from describing the plot in any detail. That doesn't disallow describing some of the characterization.Paul ranges from amusingly gruff to buffoonishly pompous to slightly sinister. Dame (as Paul) gets his best lines, with the funniest delivery, in the first section of the film, where he continually breaks the mood. From the audience's perspective, the beginning seems like a slightly pretentious low to no budget film, ala Insaniac (2002) or Last House on Hell Street (2002), for which Paul gets to voice the concerns and protests of the viewer, if the viewer drinks a lot of Budweiser and lives in a trailer.Stephanie seems most concerned with continually getting laid, and later with money, no matter what level of reality is revealed. There is nary a male character she doesn't seem interested in at some point. This is made more amusing by the fact that while she's attractive enough, her facial structure makes her something like an attractive Neanderthal (I don't really mean that as insulting, but I'm sure it will be difficult to not take that way). At least the film was shot in the days before boob jobs were so ubiquitous. We can be thankful that Nardo didn't know any strippers well enough to talk them into doing the film--I actually like more "plain" and "interesting"-looking women like Dee (who plays Stephanie) better. The poster artist, who displays a very active imagination, might not agree. At any rate, at one point this character gets to provide an unconvincing "voice of sanity" for the audience, but it turns out to be just as much a false reality as the rest of the film.Roberta, who turns out to be a more minor character, is most charming in transvestite mode, where s/he comes across like Tootsie (1982) with fewer acting lessons. Later, when s/he is just a guy, we keep hoping s/he'll put the bra and wig back on. Perhaps Murphy should have been given a bigger role, but maybe we should be glad he wasn't.The actors, although not good in any traditional sense, are certainly fun to watch. The technical elements are more difficult to speak about so highly. Nardo's direction, in terms of staging, is sometimes competent but never impressive. Occasionally it's more incompetent. Some scenes are so dark you can't tell what is going on, and too often it's difficult for the viewer to piece one location's relationship to another location. That is important to get right for narrative flow. There are also a couple characters introduced but mysteriously just dropped (think of the gym scene). But maybe Nardo was concentrating on getting the "right" performances from the principals.My rating may seem high to some given my comments, but for this one, I'm rating how fun it is to watch if you enjoy the ridiculous. Often, a film like this would get my "so bad, it's good" rating of 5, but I don't really think this is a bad film--there are too many signs of competence. It's a shame that none of the cast or crew seemed interested or able to pursue other films. There is a lot of potential here.
reptilicus
Gadzooks, I wasted 97 minutes of my life watching this? For the first half hour you get drawn into what you think is a remake of the 1969 movie GAMES, but then it switches tracks and becomes a murder plot by an unhappily married wife against her rich and eccentric to the point of completely weird husband (he imitates Beethoven, Hamlet, and Toulouse-Lautrec to name only three). Sadly the murder for profit part is, to say the least, predictable.I can see why the people at Trauma Films . . .er . . .excuse me, I mean Troma Films picked it up. Personally I would rather watch anything done by Harry Novak (yes and I am including AXE and THE CHILD in that group) or even Bill Rebane (give me THE GIANT SPIDER INVASION or even RANA, LEGEND OF SHADOW LAKE any day).
Access Sanctuary
What a day. Paul is knocked out by two ugly guards in trench coats. He wakes to find himself in the parlor of a strange house/mansion. As he searches the house, he stumbles upon a bland, clueless blonde who knows more about him than he's comfortable with. Then he's summoned to dinner by what is obviously a man in drag. At dinner, Roberta proposes Paul make love to Stephanie while she watches. This is just too much and Paul tries to make an escape. When he returns to the table, he is spooked to see Roberta has vanished (reason enough to be spooked in any TROMA film). Paul and Stephanie formulate a plan and try to escape from Roberta's evil clutches. Just as they think they've gotten away, they both become equally interested in each other and unknowingly Roberta's watching them. They are taken captive once again by Roberta but as it turns out Roberta just wants Paul to make love to her. Paul is not about to 'do' such an ugly 'chick' but as Roberta commands for the murder of Stephanie, she persuades Paul to see things her way. Now that Roberta finally gets what she wants, what happens but she calls out, "I don't have to go through with this do I? You said it would stop here?"And in response: the panicked Stephanie who is cramped in a maiden (the torture device used in Scotland) suddenly cocks her head back and with a devilish grin replies, "So I did. You can stop now Roberta, darling." Robert takes off his wig and all goes back to normal. So, what is normal you ask? Stephanie is Casey and Paul is Jared. A married, rich couple who engage in eccentric historical 'games' with a kinky and deadly twist, as Casey rehashes in confrontation with her husband. But normal for Casey is not waking in the night to find Robert lurking around in her house, hoping to find some more filthy money. The two come up with their own plan to kill Jared, hide his body, and split his money once he can be declared legally dead. But somebody's playing for keeps, and in this game, everyone loses.
Intriguing and imaginatively written. But, unfortunately the production is poor and the cast is collectively less than motivated. Though I would have to say M. R. Murphy did turn in a stunningly captivating performance as the drag-queen, Roberta. Best scene in the movie (got me and my friends cracking up so hard): the close-up shot of Roberta at the table as he says, "Yes, my pet. I like to watch," in a very squeaky and creepy tone.
I recommend this movie because it's very much unlike TROMA's gross-out flicks and because it's pretty good in it's so-bad kind of way. The '80's doesn't get any cheesier than this! 'Gag me with a spoon'.
